agent-tdd-london-swarm

Agent skill for tdd-london-swarm - invoke with $agent-tdd-london-swarm

1.01x

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

93%

1.01x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/agent-tdd-london-swarm/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

0%Scale 1-3

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill is a verbose, abstract description of London School TDD concepts and fictional 'swarm coordination' patterns rather than actionable instructions. It explains concepts Claude already knows (mocking, behavior verification, outside-in TDD), uses fictional APIs that don't correspond to real tools or libraries, and lacks any concrete workflow or validation steps. The content reads more like a tutorial article than an operational skill.

Suggestions

Replace abstract pattern descriptions with a concrete, step-by-step workflow: e.g., '1. Read the task, 2. Write failing acceptance test, 3. Create mocks for collaborators, 4. Implement to pass, 5. Verify all mock expectations met'

Remove explanations of basic TDD/mocking concepts Claude already knows and focus only on project-specific conventions, tool configurations, or non-obvious constraints

Replace fictional APIs (swarmCoordinator, SwarmContractMonitor, createSwarmMock) with real tool invocations or remove them entirely if no actual swarm coordination tooling exists

Add explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., 'Run `npm test` after each red-green-refactor cycle and verify all mocks are satisfied before proceeding')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~200+ lines. Explains basic TDD concepts Claude already knows (what outside-in TDD is, what mocks are, what behavior verification means). The 'Core Responsibilities' section is pure padding. Many code examples are repetitive and illustrate the same concept (mock setup and verification) multiple times. The 'swarm coordination' concept is vaguely defined with pseudo-APIs (swarmCoordinator, SwarmContractMonitor) that don't correspond to real tools.	1 / 3
Actionability	Despite having many code examples, none are truly executable or copy-paste ready. Functions like `createSwarmMock`, `extendSwarmMock`, `SwarmContractMonitor`, `swarmCoordinator.notifyTestStart` are fictional APIs with no implementation or library reference. The skill describes abstract patterns rather than providing concrete, actionable instructions for a specific task. There are no real commands, tool invocations, or specific steps Claude should follow.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	No clear workflow or sequenced steps for Claude to follow. The content is organized as a reference document of patterns rather than a process. There are no validation checkpoints, no error recovery steps, and no clear sequence of actions. The numbered sections (1, 2, 3) describe concepts rather than workflow steps.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files and no bundle files to support it. All content is inline with no clear hierarchy or navigation structure. The document could benefit enormously from splitting mock patterns, swarm coordination, and best practices into separate referenced files.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Description

0%Scale 1-3

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is an extremely weak description that fails on every dimension. It provides no information about what the skill does, when to use it, or what domain it operates in. The only content is an invocation command, which is useless for skill selection purposes.

Suggestions

Describe the concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Guides test-driven development using the London school (mockist) approach, creating failing tests first, then implementing code to pass them, using mocks and stubs for dependencies.'

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger terms, e.g., 'Use when the user asks about TDD, test-driven development, London school testing, outside-in testing, mockist TDD, or writing tests before implementation.'

Remove the invocation instruction ('invoke with $agent-tdd-london-swarm') from the description and replace it with functional content that helps Claude distinguish this skill from other testing or development skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description contains no concrete actions whatsoever. It only states it's an 'agent skill' and how to invoke it, with no indication of what it actually does.	1 / 3
Completeness	Neither 'what does this do' nor 'when should Claude use it' is answered. The description only provides an invocation command, not functional information or trigger guidance.	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	The only potentially meaningful terms are 'tdd-london-swarm' which is a technical/internal identifier, not natural language a user would use. No natural keywords like 'test-driven development', 'London school TDD', 'testing', or 'red-green-refactor' are present.	1 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is so vague that it provides no distinguishing characteristics. 'Agent skill' is entirely generic and could apply to any skill.	1 / 3
	Total	4 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: ruvnet/claude-flow
Path: .agents/skills/agent-tdd-london-swarm/SKILL.md
Commit: 913f9ea

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.